The Munich district court has charged reality star Yasin Mohamed with rape after the dating show “Love Island V.I.P.” sentenced. “It was an assault, we don’t want to downplay that here,” said the judge. “A rape is a rape.”
The court imposed a suspended sentence of one year and eight months in prison - falling short of the prosecutor's demand, which had demanded a year more.
This would no longer have made it possible to suspend the sentence on probation. The verdict is not yet final. If it becomes legal, Mohamed will have to do community service as a condition of his probation. Immediately after the conviction, the defense announced that it would appeal the decision.
The court saw it as proven that the now 35-year-old, who denies the allegations, raped his fellow candidate Sophie Imelmann in the summer of 2024 after the program was recorded in a hotel in Greece. The 30-year-old, who appeared as a co-plaintiff in the trial, burst into tears after the verdict.
Court: “Highly atypical rape”
The crime was characterized by “very ambivalent behavior” and embedded in a “possibly developing relationship,” it was said. The court spoke of a “highly atypical rape”.
But the fact is that someone who ignores a clear no fulfills the offense and the legal definition of rape. The court assumes that the act was “conditionally intentional”: “He noticed this no, he understood it” - and then tried it anyway.
Defense demanded acquittal - allegations against Imelmann
The defense had called for the defendant to be acquitted and emphasized: “There was no sex for the defendant that night.” Mohamed's lawyer Alexander Esser made allegations against those affected, often in drastic terms, and spoke of a "media production" that Imelmann had set in motion. He also said: “Their image depends on the guilty verdict of the defendant.”
She “at times had the feeling that the reality show had found its way into the courtroom,” said defense attorney Daniela Gabler, speaking of “drama and theatricality” as well as Imelmann’s “ambivalent behavior,” which made it difficult for Mohamed to recognize what she wanted and what she didn’t want.
Mohamed, who is known from numerous reality formats, and the actress Imelmann had already exchanged affection in front of the camera and left the RTL 2 show together as a so-called couple - i.e. as a television couple. After filming, consensual caresses and sexual acts occurred again in the hotel room. Both sides say so.
Consensual caresses – and then?
But then the statements differ: Imelmann states that she emphasized several times that she did not want to have sexual intercourse for fear of pregnancy and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Despite her clear no, the defendant penetrated her twice without a condom.
The now 30-year-old made the allegations against him public on Instagram. As a result, Mohamed says he lost several television formats for which he had already been scheduled - including “Jungle Camp”.
Mohamed had stated through a statement from his defense attorneys that he had respected Imelmann's wishes and had not done anything against her will. However, the public prosecutor's office gave him contradictory statements in their plea. A tape recording was also discussed in the trial in which he himself admitted that he had penetrated her despite Imelmann's no. “This is a confession, it couldn’t be clearer,” said Abdou Gabbar, the lawyer for Imelmann, who is acting as a co-plaintiff in the proceedings.
"A game"? – Lawyer quotes from recording
“We are so into each other – a game,” quotes Mohamed’s defense attorney Esser from this tape recording. He also emphasized that he perceived the situation as amicable and did not have the feeling that the actress's boundaries were being ignored. He “didn’t check” it.
The actress's no was "by no means a playful no," emphasizes the public prosecutor. “You can definitely influence individual sexual acts,” she said. But that doesn't mean that you consent to all kinds of sexual acts.
“There is no need for beatings,” she said in her plea, no violence or threats for the offense of rape to be fulfilled. “The only decisive factor is that the injured party did not want sexual intercourse and clearly expressed this.” Co-plaintiff representative Gabbar emphasized that it was about “sexual self-determination and that no means no”.
